Citation NR: 9702914
Decision Date: 01/31/97 Archive Date: 02/12/97
DOCKET NO. 94-38 569 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical & Regional Office
Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD), currently evaluated as 50 percent
disabling.
2. Entitlement to a total rating based on unemployability
due to service-connected disabilities.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
L. J. Wells-Green, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from November 1968 to
November 1974. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans'
Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical & Regional Office
Center (M&ROC) in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
REMAND
Initially, the Board notes that the veteran may have raised
the issue of increased rating for his service-connected skin
disability in correspondence received in August 1996.
Clarification regarding this matter is required. The Board
further notes that a VA psychiatric examination was ordered
in September 1996, but it is not clear from the record
whether the scheduled examination was performed. The record
also reflects that records pertaining to private treatment of
the veteran for PTSD have not been obtained. It also appears
that VA vocational rehabilitation records pertinent to the
veteranís claim may be available.
The Board also notes that the schedular criteria for rating
neuropsychiatric disabilities were substantially revised,
effective November 7, 1996. The veteran has not been
provided a VA psychiatric examination since the revision of
the schedular criteria, nor has the M&ROC has an opportunity
to consider the veteranís claim under the revised schedular
criteria. Furthermore, the record reflects that the veteran
has been found to have panic disorder with agoraphobia, but
no VA medical opinion addressing the etiology of this
disorder has been obtained. Finally, the Board notes that,
while the veteran has been provided VA examinations, the
reports of those examinations do not provide sufficient
information for adjudication of his claim of entitlement to a
total rating.
In light of the foregoing circumstances, the case is REMANDED
to the M&ROC for the following actions:
1. The M&ROC should request the veteran
to clarify whether he is seeking an
increased rating for his service-
connected skin disability. The M&ROC
should respond appropriately to any
clarification provided by the veteran.
2. The M&ROC should obtain copies of all
treatment records for the veteran from
the VA Medical Center in Huntington, West
Virginia, dated from March 1996 to the
present. The M&ROC should also associate
with the claims folder any VA vocational
rehabilitation records for the veteran.
3. The veteran should be requested to
provide up-to-date information concerning
his education and industrial background
and to specifically indicate whether he
has applied for disability benefits from
the Social Security Administration (SSA).
If the veteran indicates that he has
applied for SSA disability benefits, the
RO should take appropriate steps to
obtain a copy of any SSA decision
concerning the veteranís claim and the
records upon which the decision was
based.
4. The M&ROC should also request that
the veteran identify specific names,
addresses and approximate dates of
treatment for any health care providers
who may possess additional records
pertinent to his claims. Then, with any
necessary authorization from the veteran,
the M&ROC should attempt to obtain copies
of all treatment records identified by
the veteran which have not been
previously secured, to include records of
Fred Jay Krieg, Ph.D. & Associates.
5. Then, the M&ROC should arrange for a
VA psychiatric examination of the veteran
by a board certified specialist, if
available, to determine the extent of his
service-connected PTSD and the extent and
etiology of his panic disorder with
agoraphobia. The examiner should provide
an opinion as to whether it is at least
as likely as not that the panic disorder
with agoraphobia was caused or worsened
by the veteranís PTSD. To the extent
possible the manifestations of the
veteranís PTSD should be distinguished
from those of his panic disorder with
agoraphobia. The examiner should
indicate with respect to each of the
psychiatric symptoms identified under the
new schedular criteria for rating mental
disorders whether such symptom is a
symptom of the veteranís service-
connected psychiatric disability. The
examiner should also provide an opinion
concerning the degree of social and
industrial impairment resulting from the
veteranís service-connected psychiatric
disability, to include whether it renders
the veteran unemployable. All indicated
studies should be performed, and the
rationale for all opinions expressed
should be provided. The claims folder
must be made available to the examiner
for review prior to the examination.
6. The veteran should also be provided a
VA dermatology examination by a board
certified specialist, if available, to
determine the current degree of severity
of his service-connected skin disability.
All indicated studies should be
performed, and the examiner should
provide an opinion concerning the impact
of the disability on the veteranís
ability to obtain and maintain
employment. The rationale for all
opinions expressed should also be
provided. The claims folder must be made
available to the examiner for review
prior to the examination.
7. Thereafter, the M&ROC should
undertake any other development deemed
appropriate, to include any other
indicated examinations, and, if
appropriate, adjudicate the issue of an
increased rating for skin disability and
readjudicate the claim for increased
rating for PTSD, to include consideration
of the new schedular criteria for
evaluating mental disorders. If not
rendered moot, the M&ROC should
readjudicate the claim of entitlement to
a total rating based on unemployability.
If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the
veteran's satisfaction or if a timely notice of disagreement
is received with respect to any other matter, a supplemental
statement of the case containing adequate reasons and bases
should be issued and the veteran and his representative
provided an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case
should be returned to the Board for further consideration, if
otherwise in order. By this REMAND, the Board intimates no
opinion as to any final outcome warranted. No action is
required of the veteran until he is otherwise notified by the
M&ROC.
SHANE A. DURKIN
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, ß 6, 108 Stat. 740, 741
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to
be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a
determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an
individual member of the Board.
Under 38 U.S.C.A. ß 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans
Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order
and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits
of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. ß 20.1100(b) (1995).
- 2 -